Any suggestions to refute atheism

[reggieM]

You bring up a good point… some people would rather be ignorant of God’s existence and unobligated to any particular religion than be sure of God’s existence and to actually know Him. They dislike our “dogmas” so much that their disapproval leaves them blind.

I think that’s the whole story, right there. It’s not about arguments or evidence. When the person does not want to search for God then it’s a problem of the will, not of intellectual arguments. There is so much to explore in a search for God, but many do not want to try. Some will claim that “science is the only valid means of proving there is a God”. This is self-refuting for reasons we already gave (the truth of that statement cannot be proven by science).

It’s like someone who claims “cells do not exist”.
Why?
Because you cannot show me any cells.
But you have to use a microscope to see them.
No, microscopes are not a legitimate means of looking for cells. You can only use your eyes. If I can’t see cells with my unaided vision, then there is no evidence that they exist.

It’s the same with God. You have to use other methods to find God – not laboratory science (although science can help, it’s not the only means to use).

A person who does not want to use other methods and is closed to the possiblity that God does exist is just wasting time in a discussion about God.

It’s a person who joins a discussion group about baseball who hates the sport and does not want to play or watch it ever. Why bother joining that discussion?

If a person sincerely wants to search for God, we would not hear blanket statement about how God supposedly does not exist and that there is “no evidence”. Instead, the person would search out every bit of evidence offered and approach it with an open mind.

The person would not praise himself for not having found God. Instead, he would seek help for finding God. He would realize that others have found God, but he has not done so yet.

It’s like a person who can’t play a musical instrument, bragging to musicians that he does not know how to play any music, and that music is worthless and he doesn’t want to learn about it.

Clearly, that kind of discussion is totally useless and why would any musicians want to talk to a person like that?

It’s the same with many people who insist that God does not exist, and they also do not want to try to find God.

 

[spectrm]

@reggieM et al:
Your assessment that atheists “will” themselves to not believe is offensive and stupid to boot. I was raised catholic and after speaking with deacons, priests, pastors, etc. None of it made any sense. It all contradicted itself and demanded that I hold contradictory views. I couldn’t do this and so found myself leaving the faith for greener pastures.

Since I did, the wonder and grandeur of the world continues to astound me and every time that I begin to think of there being a god, life loses it’s beauty, to me. It cheapens reality and makes free-will untenable. If anything, I would say it has taken amazing will to try to believe (and I did, for a long time), all to no avail.

But thanks for belittling a quest for knowledge that I’ve been on for the last 12 years of my life!! Sorry I could just accept someone elses answers.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I am not sure if you are agreeing or not. My point here is that we know from observation that complex systems are produced by human intelligence. Therefore when we see non-human complex systems in the universe, we can reasonably conclude that some kind of non-human “superior reasoning Power” is behind it. This was the conclusion of Einstein in 1955, the year of his death:

“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior Spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. The deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning Power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.”

A related thought is that intelligence (human) is part of the universe, so even if one takes a purely naturalistic view, one is forced to conclude that intelligence is one of the characteristics of the universe.

How does that make the supposed transcendent God anything more than a Watchmaker ? If God existed,what possible reason or excuse could we have for thinking God would be like us, recognisably or otherwise ? That would be as though metaphysically-inclined salmon were to think of God as an eternal & invisible & transcendent salmon - God might be a shark or a whale instead; or a horse; or some other thing. They could not possibly know what if anything God was, assuming them to be correct in thinking there was just the one God.​

Besides, how does that show that, because we produce things by intelligence, this supposed transcendent being does so, &, by intelligence ? What reason is there for us to reason from human activity (the existence of which is real) to Divine activity (the existence of which is highly debateable) ?

The universe is not intelligent - Cicero blew that idea to pieces 2,000 years ago. It’s a collection of phenomena, that’s all; it seems “designed” only because we ignore the lack of design. And even if there were a God, we would have no way of recognising that God existed, because this entity is outside our experience of the world we live in; we can no more recognise God than we can recognise a completely unfamilar sensation.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I am not sure of your difficulties with the Lord, liar, or lunatic trilemma. I have used it for years and have never had anybody “get out of the box.” Once you force them to acknowledge the fallacy of liar and lunatic, they have no valid escape. Dont let them start “rabbit trails” These are very direct questions, and require a direct answer.

In Christ Jesus,

M33

The trilemma takes for granted that the words​

• meant what Lewis understood them to mean
• &, that the words ascribed to Jesus were his.

This second problem loses some of its force if it can be shown that, while those words may not be his, they nevertheless reflect his ideas or those of the early Church.
Lewis’ original readers would have been less sceptical than people now; so in that respect, Christians using the trilemma - really a tetralemma, at least - nowadays have a harder time of it than he would have had.

 

[Logos385]

ReggieM and Buffalo:

I will most likely remove myself from this thread if this line of thought keeps up.

Reggie: the problem with your multiple analogies is that none of them actually address the situation… this is because they treat the contention the dissenter has as an opinion. My position, my dissent, deals with verifiable fact. You say to use other means to find God and to prove his existence… but the problem is nothing but science actually can establish proof. If you want to prove something, you must do so using scientific means… otherwise there is no actual proof. If you want proof, go through science. If you don’t, you may circumvent it.

Both: As spectrm dealt with, I do not willingly choose Atheism… it is the only reasonable position from my (the scientific) frame of reference. I tried to believe after the questioning began for quite some time, I willfully tried, just as you are asking me to. However, nothing was gained. As spectrm said, I have all the wonder, majesty and comfort from the universe itself, and can appreciate its awesome power without attributing its successes to something else.

I just choose to give the Universe the credit it deserves : D!

I won’t join back in here unless something new is brought up, or something said on this subject qualifies as a legitimate point.

 

[reggieM]

Logos385 and spectrm. I did not intend or desire to make any personal comments towards you. I’m sorry if it appeared that I was doing that. I could have worded my comments differently to avoid giving that impression.

 

[reggieM]

Reggie: the problem with your multiple analogies is that none of them actually address the situation… this is because they treat the contention the dissenter has as an opinion. My position, my dissent, deals with verifiable fact. You say to use other means to find God and to prove his existence… but the problem is nothing but science actually can establish proof. If you want to prove something, you must do so using scientific means… otherwise there is no actual proof. If you want proof, go through science. If you don’t, you may circumvent it.

Logos – You make an unfounded and unproven assertion here. You claim that “nothing but science can establish proof”. You cannot prove that statement with scientific means - thus, it is self-refuting. It is an assumption that you’ve embraced – it’s your philosophic view. You’ve embraced atheistic-materialism or scientism for reasons that have nothing to do with the scientific method.

What we’re saying is that to find God, you need to use other methods of learning and acquiring knowledge.

Both: As spectrm dealt with, I do not willingly choose Atheism… it is the only reasonable position from my (the scientific) frame of reference.

Yes, I think we can agree here, but the problem is that you’ve willingly chosen your frame of reference that provides Atheism as the only possible answer. So, you did make a willing decision to embrace a philosophical view (one not proven by science). More importantly, you willingly choose not to try other, time-honored methods to find God. For example, it was advised (very well) that you try praying the rosary every day for a year and meditate on the mysteries of Christ. You could do that in a Catholic Church, in front of the Blessed Sacrament. A prominent atheist was converted using a method like that.

Or, you could go to a Benedictine monastery, like the Monks at Clear Creek Oklahoma, and stay with them for just two weeks. Pray with them and live their lives. Or, you could visit the stigmatist I mentioned and talk with him and his fellow Franciscan priests – and see what evidence you find there for God.

tried to believe after the questioning began for quite some time, I willfully tried, just as you are asking me to. However, nothing was gained.

Again though, if you tried to find God by doing scientific experiments to prove that He exists, you were using the wrong method. If you consulted with wise, spiritual teachers and followed their advice (finding God requires some activity on the seeker’s part also – some work at virtues and self-examination) – then you would have some guidance.

 

[Thing]

Logos;Spectrm,
I don’t think science proves things, it describes things. After all, can anyone really prove that they exist. They could test themselves and weigh themselves etc., but if they do not really exist the tests don’t exist either. You might be part of my imagination, I might be God, or an alien or a 17th conscious dimension; you simply cannot be sure, and science cannot provide that type of absolute surety, that you need.
One always has to start with an assumption that reality as you experience it is true, then you arrange your science descriptions of that reality.
Several of us are proposing an alternative route forward for you both as you reject from the start that science can answer your question but you still continue to ask the question of science. I think its reasonable and helpful to offer you a way forward in the search for an answer.

 

[Logos385]

Logos;Spectrm,
I don’t think science proves things, it describes things. After all, can anyone really prove that they exist. They could test themselves and weigh themselves etc., but if they do not really exist the tests don’t exist either. You might be part of my imagination, I might be God, or an alien or a 17th conscious dimension; you simply cannot be sure, and science cannot provide that type of absolute surety, that you need.
One always has to start with an assumption that reality as you experience it is true, then you arrange your science descriptions of that reality.
Several of us are proposing an alternative route forward for you both as you reject from the start that science can answer your question but you still continue to ask the question of science. I think its reasonable and helpful to offer you a way forward in the search for an answer.

As answer to your post, I am using “proof” in the way it is used in casual conversation. To be perfectly accurate, it would have to be “proof beyond reasonable doubt.” Yes, not 100%, but it can be extremely close.

As to the base discussion, which now both you and Spectrm have touched on in your last posts, it is being said that the scientific method can not prove itself to be true, or proof, or reality, etc etc. As I said in an earlier post, the scientific method has, in fact, proven itself (beyond reasonable doubt). If the scientific method was flawed in some way, no discoveries would be made through its use. However, thanks to the fact that it works, we have computers, cars and longer life spans. The scientific method works because it provides us with tangible advancements that prove its worth.

As for using spiritual teachers as a guide into faith: that is what I meant by searching for it. I had multiple discussions with each of 7 priests (2 Presbyterian, 3 Catholic, 1 UCC and 1 Baptist), 2 Rabbis, a Zen Buddhist, an Islamic Priest and a Mormon Priest. I attempted to give all spaces on the spectrum a try. I soul-searched, did all of that spiritual stuff, and did my best for quite some time. The searching failed, and then as soon as I turned back to rational inquiry, answers were achieved left and right.

I’ve tried your proposal, and will stick with rational inquiry in all that I do. Thank you both (you three? 4? I don’t remember at this point) for the discussion, and I wish you all the best.

 

[redhen]

As I said in an earlier post, the scientific method has, in fact, proven itself (beyond reasonable doubt). If the scientific method was flawed in some way, no discoveries would be made through its use. However, thanks to the fact that it works, we have computers, cars and longer life spans. The scientific method works because it provides us with tangible advancements that prove its worth.

There are other ways to come to knowledge besides empirical means. The whole field of epistemology deals with knowledge, and how it is acquired. You see the scientific method as the** only way **to know truth and reality. In other words, if science can’t see it, measure it, or analyse it, it’s not real. But that in itself is not a scientific claim, it’s a philosophical argument.

Also, the basis of any scientific hypothesis is* intuition*, a gut feeling. This in itself is shows that empiricism is not the only way to see the world.

The searching failed, and then as soon as I turned back to rational inquiry, answers were achieved left and right.

So what answers did you find, and how exactly did you find them?

 

[Thing]

As answer to your post, I am using “proof” in the way it is used in casual conversation. To be perfectly accurate, it would have to be “proof beyond reasonable doubt.” Yes, not 100%, but it can be extremely close.

As to the base discussion, which now both you and Spectrm have touched on in your last posts, it is being said that the scientific method can not prove itself to be true, or proof, or reality, etc etc. As I said in an earlier post, the scientific method has, in fact, proven itself (beyond reasonable doubt). If the scientific method was flawed in some way, no discoveries would be made through its use. However, thanks to the fact that it works, we have computers, cars and longer life spans. The scientific method works because it provides us with tangible advancements that prove its worth.

As for using spiritual teachers as a guide into faith: that is what I meant by searching for it. I had multiple discussions with each of 7 priests (2 Presbyterian, 3 Catholic, 1 UCC and 1 Baptist), 2 Rabbis, a Zen Buddhist, an Islamic Priest and a Mormon Priest. I attempted to give all spaces on the spectrum a try. I soul-searched, did all of that spiritual stuff, and did my best for quite some time. The searching failed, and then as soon as I turned back to rational inquiry, answers were achieved left and right.

I’ve tried your proposal, and will stick with rational inquiry in all that I do. Thank you both (you three? 4? I don’t remember at this point) for the discussion, and I wish you all the best.

The searching failed, and then as soon as I turned back to rational inquiry, answers were achieved left and right.

Yet you are still asking the question.

I had multiple discussions with each of 7 priests (2 Presbyterian, 3 Catholic, 1 UCC and 1 Baptist), 2 Rabbis, a Zen Buddhist, an Islamic Priest and a Mormon Priest. I attempted to give all spaces on the spectrum a try. I soul-searched, did all of that spiritual stuff, and did my best for quite some time. The searching failed…

If you give up you are going to fail. I have yet to meet someone who suceeded by giving up.

Keep on asking.

 

[spectrm]

Yet you are still asking the question.

If you give up you are going to fail. I have yet to meet someone who suceeded by giving up.

Keep on asking.

The problem with this rationale is what I had stated earlier - “Look for something long enough and you shall find it - whether or not it’s truly there.” If we have an incentive or a desire to see something, we will. This doesn’t mean that what we’re seeing is real. The only reason I searched as long as I did for spirituality is because I thought “My family believes, but I don’t…either I’m missing something or there is a flaw in me”. All throughout my search, I found people who didn’t believe either - and what’s more - they didn’t think there was anything wrong with it. Those who continue the search when it’s fruitless are doing so already knowing that their mind will end up in faith, whether they find it or not. That’s not a very open approach. I entered into it looking hoping, but not expecting, to find. Hope gave way to disappointment which gave way to comfort. There is an intense comfort in coming to terms with ones real mortality.

I think the point of ‘spirituality’ is to give the individual a direction to go in and a way of getting there (inter-personally). I certainly have a healthy way of interacting with people and my world. My beliefs and world-view give me incentive and drive to be a better individual. I donate to charity, I care for ‘down-and-out’ family members, I’m affectionate with my family and friends. And in the end, isn’t that what it’s really all about? I don’t see how acceptance of a ‘god’ will make any of this better and the effort put forth in search wasn’t worth it. So now, it’s a passive acceptance that there is no such thing. If I’m presented with evidence to the contrary, I always examine it, but rarely find anything of value in it - too much is inferred by the person relating it. The presenters faith makes the evidence into something larger than it really is.

 

[buffalo]

The problem with this rationale is what I had stated earlier - “Look for something long enough and you shall find it - whether or not it’s truly there.” If we have an incentive or a desire to see something, we will. This doesn’t mean that what we’re seeing is real. The only reason I searched as long as I did for spirituality is because I thought “My family believes, but I don’t…either I’m missing something or there is a flaw in me”. All throughout my search, I found people who didn’t believe either - and what’s more - they didn’t think there was anything wrong with it. Those who continue the search when it’s fruitless are doing so already knowing that their mind will end up in faith, whether they find it or not. That’s not a very open approach. I entered into it looking hoping, but not expecting, to find. Hope gave way to disappointment which gave way to comfort. There is an intense comfort in coming to terms with ones real mortality.

I think the point of ‘spirituality’ is to give the individual a direction to go in and a way of getting there (inter-personally). I certainly have a healthy way of interacting with people and my world. My beliefs and world-view give me incentive and drive to be a better individual. I donate to charity, I care for ‘down-and-out’ family members, I’m affectionate with my family and friends. And in the end, isn’t that what it’s really all about? I don’t see how acceptance of a ‘god’ will make any of this better and the effort put forth in search wasn’t worth it. So now, it’s a passive acceptance that there is no such thing. If I’m presented with evidence to the contrary, I always examine it, but rarely find anything of value in it - too much is inferred by the person relating it. The presenters faith makes the evidence into something larger than it really is.

One cannot desire what they don’t know.

 

[spectrm]

One cannot desire what they don’t know.

If that even made sense, it still wouldn’t be true. I’ll never know world peace or an end to earthly hunger, but I certainly desire it.

 

[AirLiner]

Hooray its the weekend. Now I have more free time.

No…what you’re doing is drawing a logical fallacy. Lack of conclusive evidence (because there’s mounds of circumstantial and observational evidence) is not proof for the competing argument. And even at that, an immaterial mind is not proof of a godhead. Honestly, you’re not giving me anything I didn’t get out of philo101. And you might expand on what you mean by ‘unorthodox views’ - unorthodox compared to?

Your right, lack of evidence doesn’t exactly *prove *something. However what I’m trying to say is that scientists do assume that the mind is material yet they have no explanation making it reasonable to question their assumption with a well reasoned argument. And unorthodox compared to the scientific *consensus. *

There is the problem of reportablity - I agree. That’s a matter of contention to be dealt with when we’re at a level to carry out that type of research. We’re nowhere near that kind of neural observation, yet. There’s also (always) the whole “observing without disturbing” principle, so there are a number of tricks to be worked out. But this is all well down the road.

Nowhere near? I’d say the reportability thing throws your entire method out of the water. Even if I knew where every single atom and subatomic particle was at and moving towards in an organism, I still couldn’t tell if it was conscious, how do I know that I’m looking at an automaton or a conscious creature? The fact that figuring this out is impossible also very strongly indicates an immaterial mind.

You just couldn’t be more wrong. Yes, morals are human illusions. I don’t think that cheapens them in any way shape or form. As he was saying that, he was well aware that it was that illusion that prevented a person from killing … As for your statement of conclusiveness, you’re right. It’s not anything conclusive. But I follow a school of science that recognizes peer collaborated subjective observation - aka common sense - and can certainly distinguish behaviors that are without direct evolutionary or stimulated causes.

An illusion is all that is keeping someone from committing murder, and you say that while thinking nihilism is below both of us…Of course that cheapens them, because combined with lack of free will there is no reason to obey them. Killing someone becomes a simple movement of atoms.
As to your second argument, well you are forgetting that those animals also logically behave like complex automatons. And which do we have empirical evidence for? Complex automatons or an immaterial mind? The former is the more reasonable conclusion, the latter is just wishful thinking.

All animals brains function the same way? Animal brains vary in composition, size, regions present… There is plenty of reason to believe that animals are conscious, if not self-aware. Behavioral patterns, brain-wave patterns, hormonal changes to environmental stimuli - all similar or parallel to the same brain activities in human beings…the same physiological changes. The conclusion seems fairly easy to draw to me. I’d like so conclusive evidence myself, so if you ever figure out how to communicate with dogs or cats, let me know (I’d really like to know why my cat insists on hair-balling on top of my servers).

Wishful thinking, see above.

frankly, I don’t know why you’re so caught up in atheist ‘orthodoxy’. Orthodoxy is your people’s bag. It’s not like there’s a place atheists meet up to talk about how cool atheism makes us feel, and how much more empowered and special we are because we’re atheist (that, again, is generally the behavior of the religious). There would be no reason to think mine and sideline’s thoughts on the matter would be the same - not with what you know as I type this period.

Actually there are things like that. conventions, organizations, online forums, etc. And atheists usually follow the scientific consensus. Now consensus reality impairs ones ability to think for themselves, and I’m actually glad you are against it. I’ve seen only a few atheists who don’t go with the flow, but they are generally the most, tasteful, respectful, and open minded compared to so many “religion is the root of all evil and stupidity” hatred filled bigots I’m used to seeing.

I’m older, but Sideline and mine backgrounds are pretty similar (@sideline: I fell away from the faith ~13). We grew up in different parts of the world/country (presumably, I don’t actually know) with (statistically) average parents of average intelligence and average dedication to their faith. But leading different lives, out of phase with one another, we came to (thus far) the same conclusions regarding a godhead and various properties of the world in which we live. I feel sideline is on the right track. He’s smart, processes and presents information well, and is clear on his beliefs even if not overtly assertive (stay that way…no sense becoming an intellectual bully). He’s a few years behind me on his ‘apostacy’, chronologically and in age, and I certainly can’t speak for where his philosophical endeavors may lead him (mine lead me to a form of pantheism/metaphysical-naturalism - I don’t like the term ontological), but at least when he finds his answers, they’ll be truly HIS answers. I takes a lot of courage to stand-up and be an atheist (assuming he’s ‘come out’ to his family/friends).

On the right track? To becoming a semi-dualist perhaps? Atheist indifferentism? Well that was quite a bit of speculation, but thanks for the commentary.

 

[AirLiner]

I will admit, you have an excellent sense of humor.

Gotta keep the conversation lively.

If you want MY belief, I believe a form of consciousness can be achieved in a single cell (given some completely unknown and far off set of properties and circumstances) because I believe that an force exists below the level of the cell - something sub-atomic or based on the relationship of sub-atomic particles with one-another. If you want the best science answer I could give (eg, what I’ve perceived to have successfully brought forth a consciousness), I would need somewhere around 200,000,000 neurons (if you want to approximate how many atoms that is, go ahead…I don’t have a figure on how many atoms compose a typical neuron) and enough myelin sheaths to create about 2x10e12 synaptic connections. This is approximately how large and the typical contents of a squirrel’s brain (which I’ve seen in a pet setting and behaved very much like a cat) which I believe have about the lowest level of consciousness I’ve been able to observe.

Well a form of consciousness is still consciousness, so the cell was what I was looking for. So a mass of DNA moving around produces consciousness. I mean the cell really is a machine if you look at it, the nucleus doesn’t have thoughts like a human brain, it just mainly sends out RNA when needed and reproduces DNA during mitosis. My computer also sends out info and instructions to a body, but in 0s and 1’s not nucleotides So is my CPU conscious as well?

Okay - they work. I contend that most of our systems are still under development

It’s not as if evolution is working towards some sort of super-organism now. It’s merely the change of species over time. So as far as your concerned all of our systems and all organisms are fully developed. Sure they could change, but they are complete.

Fair enough…you had posited how it was even possible for a piece of matter to produce consciousness…I was merely explaining one of the more popular theories on the subject I’ve had the pleasure of debating. There are a number of theories on how the brain operates, but in the end, you either believe there’s a little spirit engine in there, or you believe that the organ’s purpose is to drive all mental faculties (subconscious and conscious alike). If YOU are right, what’s the real purpose of the brain (beyond the brain stem and, perhaps, cerebellum) if all mental faculties occur…where WOULD they occur?

Maybe it’s time for you to start answering some questions. My uncle (for educational purposes…he was a bit of a UFO nut) had this conversation with me:
HIM: So you think aliens exist, huh?
ME: Yeah.
HIM: Why?
ME: There’s how many planets around how many stars? And there’s one in nine, here, that supports life? (etc. etc. - we know how this one goes)
HIM: So what?
ME: You’re saying aliens don’t exist?
HIM: Sure. A priori, it doesn’t exist - the burden of proof is on the believer.

I don’t have to prove science to you - while I don’t see a cause or need for a god or godhead, I recognize that science and a god are not incompatible (the Abrahmic god is almost certainly improbable, though). You are the one who is claiming the falsehood of something that is the foundation for all scientific research in the last 100 years.

All the mounds of evidence and yet the statement is still “Yeah, but it’s still just a theory - it’s not conclusive”…okay…so is gravity still “Just a theory” ?

What am I claiming the falsehood of? science? No. You are trying to tell me how the mind behaves without evidence. Even neurology merely shows what moves around in the brain during thought yet here you are already giving a “theory” on where the mind is? If it’s immaterial and it leaves behind effects all you can prove is that it exists and how it left behind those effects. You are speculating not theorizing.

I already explained to you in detail how science works. According to the present evidence this theory is true. Now according to the present evidence dualism is very evident. A phenomenon is occurring which is not possible through material means, so we it indicates dualism. All we have is the effect, the phenomenon, thought. We really can’t theorize anything about the mind besides its existence and how it interacts with the brain because its immaterial. We could theorize how it interacts with the brain because of those effects, thought causes matter to move and we can observe this. But I don’t see where you are getting the empirical evidence for your speculations.

And of course gravity is still a theory. According to what is observed gravitational force exists. Unless you can show that something else is forcing objects to attract each other and such. There are some theories you can’t disprove because to do so would require the reversal of the evidence, such as continental drift. However they still follow the pattern according to the present evidence this theory is true so they are still theories.

Here’s what I was trying to say,as long as the mind is immaterial we won’t know exactly how it behaves. We should be discussing the existence itself of the immaterial mind and where it leads us to. Not the specifics of how it works.
It seems that your are a dualist right? So please explain, according to you what is the source of the immaterial mind? That unseen property of atoms you were talking about earlier.

 

[spectrm]

Logos385 and spectrm. I did not intend or desire to make any personal comments towards you. I’m sorry if it appeared that I was doing that. I could have worded my comments differently to avoid giving that impression.

No worries. I always intend to not infer people’s beliefs - not everyone is a mainline orthodox. Many people have one off’s and other various unique experiences that change their perspective of a particular doctrine. The church says to follow your conscience, too. This is a particular point where I agree with the church (and believe it or not, there are many where I at least quasi- agree and at best completely agree…it’s not like I’m the photo-negative of religion…that would, by definition, make me just as contradictory as I believe some of the hard-line beliefs to be).

If you call me on it, I would be willing to admit if I was at fault for presuming another’s beliefs, just the same as you had the conscience to do. Underneath it all, I’d argue, we’re not that different.

Let’s have a good discourse - I’d like to hear some of your actual beliefs…the unique experiences (not the cliche ones that so many claim - a ‘presence’) give me a unique story. I love hear other’s interpretations of our universe’s phenomena and relate my similar experiences…of which I can assure you, there are many. We can do this in PM if you prefer. But ultimately, what convinces a person of faith or not is how they perceive the events and the effects one feels from it.

 

[spectrm]

Hooray its the weekend. Now I have more free time.

Amen to that

Your right, lack of evidence doesn’t exactly *prove *something. However……And unorthodox compared to the scientific *consensus. *

1. there are MANY theories on how the brain is responsible for the mind, and we’re working on getting to the level where we can gather conclusive data. It’s a process. It’s not a binary process, as you seem to believe. We accrue percentage of probability until such point that it’s blaringly factual - and there are truly only a few things that hit that mark. But 99.99999% might as well be 100% when the alternative is ~5%.

Nowhere near? I’d say the reportability thing throws your entire method out of the water. …

Not at all. See, we’re problem solvers. That’s what our brain and our body is developed for…to solve adaptive problems. We can’t guarantee the reliability of a reporting mechanism from any animal other than humans (I hesitate to say “yet”…but that’s a topic of a different color). But we can guarantee our own reportability and compare it against reproducible brainwave patterns and CT scan images to see what mental states invoke various states of consciousness. I think your understanding of science as it stands is quite poor.

An illusion is all that is keeping someone from committing murder, and you say that while thinking nihilism is below both of us…

I say that because you over simplify my argument (btw - you should really try focusing on your own). There is a distinct incentive for humans to cooperate and not simply start offing one another. ‘Illusion’ is not the ONLY thing keeping one from homicide. It’s merely the most cited reason. Truthfully, we have an inherent aversion towards any involvement with the death process - this is a successful evolutionary development, if there ever was an example of one.

As to your second argument, well you are forgetting that those animals also logically behave like complex automatons. And which do we have empirical evidence for? Complex automatons or an immaterial mind? The former is the more reasonable conclusion, the latter is just wishful thinking.

Once again, we don’t have conclusive empirical evidence. But we do have some empirical evidence and plenty of observational data. And once again you narrow it to only two possibilities. Why are YOU so closed minded?

Wishful thinking, see above.

d…d…d…d…d…d…answer the damned argument. Don’t sidestep with rhetoric and ridicule. You prefer to erect strawmen than contend with the argument at hand. There’s only so many times I’m going to repeat myself.

Actually there are things like that. conventions, organizations, online forums, etc. And atheists usually follow the scientific consensus…

Yes, I find the religious bigots a big turn-off too coughAirLinercough. Would I be happy if religion were rid from the world? Perhaps…But I do reason that some people really do NEED it…who’m I to take that away from them. I can’t say I would sleep any differently at night, but I can say the world would be quite a different place indeed. And as for the “gatherings”…I was really making an allusion towards church/congregation. It was a slight jab.

On the right track? To becoming a semi-dualist perhaps? Atheist indifferentism?

No. On the right track to having answers that have true meaning to him. As a person of faith, you of all people should appreciate the journey!!! Who’s to say he doesn’t go back to the church with more energy than even you can muster (and with less bigotry). Let him find his own path.

Well that was quite a bit of speculation, but thanks for the commentary.

Less speculation and more the tone, tenor, and content of our conversations both private and public. I was merely relating my story in comparison to his in order to make a point about how improperly you’re handling the argument. Do you not have anything of value to contribute or are you going to continue to ridicule?

I saw you posted one more. I’ll read that…but if you keep with this nonsense, this will be the end.

 

[spectrm]

Gotta keep the conversation lively.

It does not go unappreciated, then, on either end.

Well a form of consciousness is still consciousness, so the cell was what I was looking for. So a mass of DNA moving around produces consciousness. I mean the cell really is a machine if you look at it, the nucleus doesn’t have thoughts like a human brain, it just mainly sends out RNA when needed and reproduces DNA during mitosis. My computer also sends out info and instructions to a body, but in 0s and 1’s not nucleotides So is my CPU conscious as well?

The ‘cell’ was in parentheses because it reflects a belief that I hold…not what I accept as reality. I believe I mentioned it goes well beyond mere RNA into the sub-atomic particles and the properties they hold. I believe that to create consciousness as we’re discussing it, takes the 2,000,000 whatever figure I stated. This, once again, has empirical evidence and observational support.

It’s not as if evolution is working towards some sort of super-organism now. It’s merely the change of species over time. So as far as your concerned all of our systems and all organisms are fully developed. Sure they could change, but they are complete.

False, false, and false. Do not infer my beliefs. I believe it CAN be provable by natural studies, but I believe plenty of things that I embody in a sense of mysticism (as I said before “what did they call the television in 1776?” - I have to convey the ideas somehow…). This is only because we’re not at a level of study that we can see and generate data on them. But as history has shown, it’s only a matter of time (if we can stop focusing on research to make a man’s member salute!!!).

What am I claiming the falsehood of? science? No. You are trying to tell me how the mind behaves without evidence. Even neurology merely shows what moves around in the brain during thought yet here you are already giving a “theory” on where the mind is? If it’s immaterial and it leaves behind effects all you can prove is that it exists and how it left behind those effects. You are speculating not theorizing.

You presuppose so much about the implications. I know plenty of scientists who believe firmly in free-will and of course the common experience of it is a large argument in it’s favor. There are numerous among us who see free-will as a natural adaptation. Certain processes simply can’t be handled at the raw-resources level. Processing of a much higher caliber and abstraction is necessary (it’s like the genetics are assembling an ‘auto-pilot’ system for themselves).

I already explained to you in detail how science works. According to the present evidence this theory is true…

Once again, your presentation of the idea is cartoonishly simple and lacks true understanding of it’s implications. But further down, you hit the right note…continue…

And of course gravity is still a theory…

You are, of course, correct on this note. Some things are beyond the scope of our provability…at present. If history has shown us anything, it’s that we try and try and then get it right. It’s a process. I feel like a broken record. Anyone who claims empiricism is the only true epistemology is just as fanatical as I perceive some of you to be. I said that I believe nihilism to be beneath both of us, and I meant it. Science, on the other hand, can and does often include the human experience, which is undeniable.

Here’s what I was trying to say,as long as the mind is immaterial we won’t know exactly how it behaves. We should be discussing the existence itself of the immaterial mind and where it leads us to. Not the specifics of how it works.

But that’s what you had asked for.

It seems that your are a dualist right?

Not in the way that you use the word…

So please explain, according to you what is the source of the immaterial mind? That unseen property of atoms you were talking about earlier.

I’m glad you ask. It shall be my next post (it would likely put me over my ‘7000 character limit’.

 

[spectrm]

According to me (my belief…unverified…I do not claim it as science, or fact):

Each of us, in our millions and million and billions of atoms in most if not all of our billions of cells have little specs of star-stuff. Particles from stars that have lived, burned, died, exploded, and assembled a new universal roost. When the new galaxy, or planet, or star, or meteor or whatever forms, it has these particles in it, and so contains an inherent energy - a plasmic charge from being a piece of a nuclear reactor for the last X million years. The sub-atomic charge of these particles is already verified, and the effects of which are being studied as I type.

This charge, this property about them, affects the behavior of electrons and atoms and other sub-atomic particles. Like an induction motor, they can generate electricity just by their proximity to other electrically inclined particles. Quarks can be charged to induce certain radiation waves. These quarks are naturally charged whenever the matter they compose plasmatizes - like when lightning strikes. This is why there’s a tenable energy in a room with a lot of static and why certain areas of the earth have a certain feeling of energy - as well as why the area where lightning struck often feels measurably cooler for a while afterwards.

Enough of these particles amass in one place, combined with organic biology - which does not inherently depend on the properties of these particles, but I believe it plays a role, create an energy field that becomes akin to jumpstarting a car. Now all the genetics need to do is build the machine (which is easy as organisms progress physically to the more complex, why should not the brain).

Eventually, a particular organism becomes the dominant species in nearly every environment on the planet and suddenly, there is no more need for biological adaptation - in effect, physical evolution has ceased. NOW the most complex problem in our environment is US.

As I stated before, our genetics then give up on trying to hardwire all these complex behaviors - there’s no way it could keep up with the changes in social environment. The only way to adapt is to lend the weight to an organ that’s capable of adapting in real-time - one that has a will all it’s own and the ability to enact it through it’s body (which conveniently had been developed over the last few million years).

Much of this is already accepted as a possible answer. Dawkins has an entire chapter dedicated to the exact argument made in my last paragraph. I’m not as far off base as you think, either (sorry if I alluded towards a larger disparity).

To be honest, the majority of my ideology is common to nearly all the atheists I’ve ever met. I do believe in objectivism - a lot of atheists are objectivist…ask any Ayn Rand fan what religion they are, and they’ll all scoff, but they’re objectivists!!! I just don’t think an ‘objective truth’ has any opinion one way or the other with how we go about our lives. I think the answer is in the end - and we may never see it. We’re just a part of it. A cog in the universe. It’s not really designed, but it’s not sheer chaos either (though chaos is clearly an element of it).

The star stuff is my own special twist, I guess. I have certainly felt the energies of people. I see aura’s. I’ve felt a sense of nirvana during meditations, and I’m a frequent pot smoker (it’s the cheater’s way to a sense of clarity - but my life is busy, and a shortcut is sometimes necessary…I do have a lot of important stuff upon which to meditate). People emit energy, and each person’s energy is unique. It has it’s own texture, it’s own temperature, it’s own smell. It is certainly perceptible to those trained in perceiving it. Many of the saints and prophets, including your Jesus and my Buddha, no doubt had amazing auras about them - that even people not lent to perceiving them saw it clear as day. But many great scholars have carried the same gravitas about them.

Please don’t view my pot-smoking as “he’s some silly hippy with crazy mystical ideas”. I’m a very rational individual with a very successful job and high marks in the IQ category (not that that’s truly conclusive of anything…I do think it’s culturally biased). I’m not crazy and I’m not on any crazy person meds (not even anti-depressants…did them a few times recreationally…not my bag…I don’t recommend them either).

I think we all witness the same phenomenon and process the information differently. We’ve all developed different filters throughout our lives by what we allow/will-to/default-in believing/perceiving/doing. This is a part of our natural development - to become unique individuals for the sake of increasing our success in the world. And that’s pretty much the metaphysics of it.